I don't know that I trust all the "insider" info. Nevertheless, they could do different set lists with their abilities if they had shorter shows. If, for example, instead of a 2 hour show, they had 1.5 hour shows, they could do less songs, expend less energy and not really have to get much more of an act down than 360. They might make more money because of repeat customers and with their age (I hate to admit it) they might be able to perform better this way. As for the tech side of things, I have no idea how that works.

The idea makes sense, but for a band of their caliber with the amount of songs they have, anything less than a 2 hour show isn't acceptable.

this is a frequent complaint from U2 fans, myself included. I, for one, would like to see them shake it up a bit and not have a predictable setlist. On every U2 tour, you can predict all of the following: There will be 5/6 songs off the new album.There will be about 8 big hits from past albums, including WOWY, UTEOTW, Streets, ISHFWILF, Pride, SBS, One.There will be a couple of songs thrown in for the dedicated fans, but it will be the same couple on each show (on 360 it was scarlett and the Unforgettable Fire, on Vertigo, it was Electric Co/An Cat Dubh)

Then, they may or may not close with "40"

I, for one, would like to see them adding 15-20 songs to their setlist to play 5-6 of them each night, for the hardcore fans. Songs like:

I don't know that I trust all the "insider" info. Nevertheless, they could do different set lists with their abilities if they had shorter shows. If, for example, instead of a 2 hour show, they had 1.5 hour shows, they could do less songs, expend less energy and not really have to get much more of an act down than 360. They might make more money because of repeat customers and with their age (I hate to admit it) they might be able to perform better this way. As for the tech side of things, I have no idea how that works.

The idea makes sense, but for a band of their caliber with the amount of songs they have, anything less than a 2 hour show isn't acceptable.

Energy is not an issue. They will play 140-150 minutes per night on the next tour, which has been their average for the last 20 years.

Would be great to have some kind of interactive thing where at a certain point in the show the crowd vote for 3 songs from a list of ten for u2 to play on a b stage - cant see it happening though - dont know how the technology would work and cant see them being rehearsed/able enough to pull it off

i think, like what edge said after the 360 tour: "you cant repeat yourself, you cant rely on things that have been done before by anybody else, you just got to find new territory. and so every time we go into the studio its the same thing wer'e looking for, and every time we sit down to start talking about a live production , we ask ourselves the same question which is:" what never been done?" i think we are going to see different things this time, but different in the music way, not in the production way (what can be bigger than the 360???). a different setlist can be one of them, playing b-sides maybe..., playing in small places , more intimacy( arenas???..).back to the roots...

Their setlists have never really differed during a tour from what I recall. ZooTV was very predictable, with the only shakeup coming halfway through when Zooropa was released. PopMart was pretty stable throughout.

Usually there's a couple new songs that are tried a few times but subsequently dropped (Do You Feel Loved, IGWSHA, Zooropa on ZooTV, Babyface, Crumbs) or that are abandoned towards the end of the tour (All Because Of You, Ultraviolet on ZooTV, pretty much all the NLOTH songs) or that occasionally rotate in slots. The skeleton of the set usually remains very stable.

Wrong again dude,lovetown tour in 89 had multiple setlists ,and they do have the chops for it,usually they have 60 songs rehearsed before a tour and can drop any of those songs in at a moment's notice.90% of people will only see one show during a tour so changing setlists is not top of the agenda,most bands play mainly the same setlists most nights as they can nail the tunes and the gig sounds more focused ,unless your Bruce Springsteen in which case a lot of gig goers can be left scratching their heads wondering why they played 100euros to hear some obselete set consisting of album fillers and b sides.

this is a frequent complaint from U2 fans, myself included. I, for one, would like to see them shake it up a bit and not have a predictable setlist. On every U2 tour, you can predict all of the following: There will be 5/6 songs off the new album.There will be about 8 big hits from past albums, including WOWY, UTEOTW, Streets, ISHFWILF, Pride, SBS, One.There will be a couple of songs thrown in for the dedicated fans, but it will be the same couple on each show (on 360 it was scarlett and the Unforgettable Fire, on Vertigo, it was Electric Co/An Cat Dubh)

Then, they may or may not close with "40"

I, for one, would like to see them adding 15-20 songs to their setlist to play 5-6 of them each night, for the hardcore fans. Songs like:

Tomorrow

Surrender

Wire

A sort of Homecoming

Three sunrises

Red Hill Mining Town

Hawkmoon 269

God part II

The Wanderer

So Cruel

Slug

The Saints are coming

Electrical Storm

Being Born

I'd like to see One Tree Hill played more often, too. Dirty Day would be my pick. I think Bono would, unfortunately, have a tough time pulling off many of the songs on your list, especially if this is going to be a tour of multinight stands.

Wrong again dude,lovetown tour in 89 had multiple setlists ,and they do have the chops for it,usually they have 60 songs rehearsed before a tour and can drop any of those songs in at a moment's notice.90% of people will only see one show during a tour so changing setlists is not top of the agenda,most bands play mainly the same setlists most nights as they can nail the tunes and the gig sounds more focused ,unless your Bruce Springsteen in which case a lot of gig goers can be left scratching their heads wondering why they played 100euros to hear some obselete set consisting of album fillers and b sides.

The other things I wonder about is whether or not the ten percent of us that go to multiple shows benefit that much in the end anyway. Who's to say all of us would want to hear So Cruel or Tomorrow at a live show? Would a lot of us even know the songs enough to sing along or give it energy that the rest of the crowd wouldn't give it anyway? Then if they did revolve most of the set list every show, what if a lot of us don't even go to consecutive shows in the end? We might get the same set list at another show we see anyway. They might end up playing one of the songs were hoping to hear the other night instead.

Then there's the question of whether or not any of these songs would even sound good in a live setting, which is probably a factor that doesn't get talked about a lot...

There will be about 8 big hits from past albums, including WOWY, UTEOTW, Streets, ISHFWILF, Pride, SBS, One.

To be fair, Pride and UTEOTW have been dropped at times during the past two tours to varying degrees. Beautiful Day and Vertigo would probably be more valid choices for what you're trying to get at here.

Contrary to how it feels, their tours have more or less gotten continuously less predictable from Zoo TV pretty much in a linear progression through to 360. So we might see that continue.

On the other hand, that's within a very narrow spectrum (They're still VERY predictable) and I think there are really two reasons for that;1) Since PopMart to a very very small extent and since Vertigo to a much larger extent, they tend to drop newer songs as the tour goes on, opening up space for more variability, AND2) Over time, particularly with the success of ATYCLB and HTDAAB, their catalogue of 'hits' has grown so that they can continue to play more or less the same absolute number of 'hits' as before but can rotate exactly which ones they are. (Many don't rotate, of course but others do in a way they wouldn't have when they were relatively new and U2 had less hits anyway)

That's just a thought though; as I say, it could be taken a step further next time. But probably not much more than a step.

Their setlists have never really differed during a tour from what I recall. ZooTV was very predictable, with the only shakeup coming halfway through when Zooropa was released. PopMart was pretty stable throughout.

Usually there's a couple new songs that are tried a few times but subsequently dropped (Do You Feel Loved, IGWSHA, Zooropa on ZooTV, Babyface, Crumbs) or that are abandoned towards the end of the tour (All Because Of You, Ultraviolet on ZooTV, pretty much all the NLOTH songs) or that occasionally rotate in slots. The skeleton of the set usually remains very stable.

Wrong again dude,lovetown tour in 89 had multiple setlists ,and they do have the chops for it,usually they have 60 songs rehearsed before a tour and can drop any of those songs in at a moment's notice.90% of people will only see one show during a tour so changing setlists is not top of the agenda,most bands play mainly the same setlists most nights as they can nail the tunes and the gig sounds more focused ,unless your Bruce Springsteen in which case a lot of gig goers can be left scratching their heads wondering why they played 100euros to hear some obselete set consisting of album fillers and b sides.

As a lifelong fan of the boss, I couldn't disagree more. Yes - U2 did vary Lovetown (1989-90) nicely, especially the opening section, but they have not done it since. For the last 20 years, U2 has played 20-25 songs per show, and setlists are 85-90% the same songs as the previous show. Whenever I go see the Boss, I want to hear songs I have not heard him play live before, and he NEVER disappoints.

He has a great habit recently of playing an entire album from cover to cover. I, for one, love it.

Of course, there are good reasons why U2 is a better live act than Bruce, and - yes - their light shows make it harder to switch things up. But I would LOVE to hear U2 play different numbers at each show.